My name is Lisa Clark, and I'm the chair of the Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 43 p.m.

on Thursday, April 2nd, 2026.

This is an in-person meeting taking place in the City Hall Annex at 900 Bagby.

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing via HTV.

Speakers, if you wish to address the Commission on an item, please fill out the speaker's form before the item is called and turn it into staff near the front door.

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

And new speakers are time for two minutes.

Our speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker sign-in form attached to the agenda.

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes as time as well as time for rebuttals.

Non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes time.

There is not an option for a rebuttal.

Even if you did not use your full two minutes, you will not be allowed to speak again, and time cannot be allotted to another speaker.

To establish a quorum of 11 members, I'll call the roll.

Vice Chair Garza?

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heich.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Madez.

Present.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Pham?

Present.

Commissioner Pierce?

Present.

Commissioner Sarim?

Present.

Commissioner Siegler?

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Present.

Commissioner Montepaca.

Present.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

We have 17 members, so we are at above quorum.

Okay.

I need to let you all know there is one item that has been withdrawn.

And that is item 87, Fuel Depot at Southmore.

So we will not hear anything on this item nor take any action.

And now I will call for the director's report.

Director Tran.

Good afternoon, Chair Clark, Commission members, staff, and the public.

I am Von Tran, Secretary of this Commission, and Director of the Houston Planning and Development Department.

Welcome.

The Planning and Development Department will be closed tomorrow, Friday, April the 3rd for spring holiday.

We will resume regular business on Monday, April the 6th.

The major thoroughfare and freeway plan amendments.

Application review process is underway.

We are currently reviewing the application materials and coordinating with all the affected agencies.

We look forward to sh to sharing our findings on these applications with you at the upcoming MTFP amendment workshop, which is scheduled for May the 14th at 1 p.m.

at this location.

In closing, for assistance, please call the planning and development department at 832-393-6600.

You can also reach the planner of the day at 832-393-6624.

And as always, you can visit us online at Houston Planning dot com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, we have the prior meeting minutes for our March 19, 2026.

They were posted on the agenda.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion Matez?

Second.

Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now moving along to platten activity A and B.

Hello.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Adiso G.

Adesioju.

Sections A and B are presented as one group, which includes consent and reply items not requiring notification.

Sections A and B are items 1 through 82.

Sections A consent items are numbers 1 through 37, and Section B, replay items are numbers 38 through 82.

Madam Chair, we have a change in staff recommendation for item 59.

Magnolia Holmes has been changed from approved to defer per the applicant's request.

No other items need to be taken out of order, and there are no other changes to staff recommendation.

Madam Chair, if there are no individuals signed up to speak on these items, the planning and development department requests the approval of all staff recommendations for consent and replied items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I do have a couple of speakers signed up on item 59 and 72.

And then I so we'll take those next.

And then I do know I that I have some recusals.

Uh Commissioner Heisch.

Yes, Madam Chair.

I will abstain from items 1, 5, 6, 19, and 42.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mates.

I will abstain from item 4, 18, 23, 29, 30, and 32.

Okay.

So I need a motion.

Any others?

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept.

Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 23, 29, 30, 32, 42, 59, and 72.

Do I have a motion?

Motion fan.

Second Jones.

Okay, I think it was motion fam, second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

Now we'll do the recusals first and then we'll call the speakers.

So I need a motion for items one, four, five, six, eighteen, nineteen, twenty-three, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-two, and forty-two.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So now we'll have a presentation on item 59.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Suvita Bandy.

Magnolia.

Item 59 is Magnolia Homes.

This is a class 2 replat where the property is being replatted to create single family lots with the shared driveway development.

In staff's review, there are some deed restrictions that we found, and we have communicated that to the applicant.

The applicant is looking into the deed restricted billing lines.

And that's the reason for uh request to differ from the applicant.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Okay.

So we do have a speaker, Carlos Espinoza.

I know you say questions only, but did you have anything that you wanted to share?

Okay.

Okay.

So you have a motion for deferral.

I mean a recommendation.

Thank you.

Motion FAM, second ball one.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 72.

Wait a minute.

I'll call you in just a second.

Staff has to do their presentation.

Sorry, we're a little bit clunky here because we are missing some pieces, but be patient with us.

Item number, ma'am?

72.

72 is Saint Claire Willis.

This application is also a class two replied application where the applicant is proposing lots.

And staff recommendation is to approve.

And it is located in the city.

Okay.

Any questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

And our speaker is Garney Griggs.

Thank you for your patience, Mr.

Griggs.

If you wouldn't mind restating your name for the record.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

I am Garney Griggs, President of the Broad Oaks Area Civic Association.

Good afternoon.

This relates to item 72 2026-0098 51 East Broad Oaks, Broad Oaks Reserve.

This property is in our subdivision.

Yeah, I think so, Tim.

It's now agenda.

Yeah.

I think you needed to sign up for 83.

All right, I'll call you back up.

Yes.

I'll call you back up.

All right.

So Commissioners, you have a recommendation to approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion ball one.

Second.

Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

Now we're going to move along to C replatts requiring public hearings and notification.

Item 83.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair of the Members of the Planning Commissioner.

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 83 is the site is located in the city limit east of Shimney Walk Road and north of Woodward Drive.

The purpose of the wee plat is to create 21 single family lots and one reserve for parking purposes.

No variances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

And per legal, the Popo replot would not violate applicable restriction.

Staff have received multiple public comments in events, voicing concern on joining, flooding, dentity, traffic, and parking.

Also, the applicant met with the committee this week, and no changes were made to the plat, and this is a shall approved item.

Madam Chit, is it pleased to the Commission?

You may continue.

The public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 83 is continued.

I do have speakers, Mr.

Griggs.

Would you like to come back up?

We're giving you work out today.

That's good for all of us.

I am Garney Griggs, President of the Broad Oaks Area Civic Association.

This relates to item 83, 2026 0098.

51 East Broad Oaks, Broad Oaks Reserve.

This property is in our subdivision.

The application is for the replatting of lot 51 for the building of 21 homes on a 2.5-acre tract.

In a hearing on March 19th, we and many others oppose the replatting for a number of reasons.

Two council members submitted written opposition to the replatting.

The Commission deferred action on the application and urged the meeting of the opposition with developer Frank Liu.

A meeting was had with Mr.

Liu and representative neighbors of the project.

While the meeting did not result in reduction in the number of lots, the neighbors were encouraged by Mr.

Liu that he was planning a good project with the expectation of reasonable parking on and off-site, appropriate water retention and drainage solutions and green spaces around traditional homes similar to those now in the neighborhood.

We have advised Mr.

Liu that our association upon replatting would actively be involved in the continuing process with the Planning and Development Commission and in the permitting and construction until completion of the project.

We have much to do, but we are hopeful for a good result.

We appreciate the interest of all the persons involved and thank the Commission for its service.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Griggs.

Commissioners, you have any questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Julianne Julian Coyne.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon.

I'm Julianne Klein.

I am here as a representative of the applicant if there's any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions of the applicant?

Okay, thank you.

I'll call you back up if there are.

And then our last speaker is David White.

Same thing.

Okay.

Okay.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on item 83?

All right.

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion.

Motion Sigler.

Second Baldwin.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 84.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairs, members of the members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 84 is Diamond Reserve.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along West 25th Street.

The purpose of the replat is to create one understituted reserve.

There are no advances requested with this item, and the applicant has met all notification requirements.

Review by legal indicates that the plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff has not received any advanced written comments regarding this application.

Staff recommendation is to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, if it please the Commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 84 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second Mattes, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 85.

Item 85 is the states on Brinkley.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Brinkley Street between Edgar and Duane.

The purpose of the replat is to create three single-family lots in a flag lot configuration.

There are no advances requested with this item, and the applicant has met all notification requirements.

Review by legal indicates that the plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff recommendation is to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 85 is continued.

Commissioners, I have the applicant, Mr.

Espinoza.

If you have any questions.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 85.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 86.

Item 86.

Finish Cottage Court.

The site is located in the Houston City Lit.

South of Lay Road and east of Homestead Road.

The purpose of the WIPLA is to create four single family lots and one parking reserve and to modify the building lines.

There are no variants that requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 86 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Please come forward.

One at a time.

And if you would state your name for the record, I appreciate it.

So I just think that's a good thing.

Translate me in the case.

Because this is in the contrast may cause more um flooding in the area.

In la calle is muy chica para tener ese complejo de apartamentos or casas.

Soin.

And the street is very narrow, so it's not adequate for this proposed construction, so it's not okay.

My name is Jose Arsate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioners, if there are no questions, we'll move on to the speakers.

Yes.

Move on to the next speaker, is what I was going to say.

Yes, please come forward.

Sorry, you are trying to help.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I live on the same street.

Uh they're planning to make the disc construction of that.

And we appreciate the service of the city.

We use the ambulance, we use the fire department and everything.

And this lot is is too small for all of that.

We got a ditch on the side.

There's no parking for any guests or even the homeowners for it.

So I'm in a post board, and I'm a neighbor to that lot.

We have space for our guests for us to come in to Angle Rogers.

That little spot doesn't have any any any of it.

And like I say, I need the ambulance, the city services and everything.

I drive, and we use the Metro.

Metro has uh had to bag up because uh the street is narrow and there's cars on the street.

So I'm opposed to that.

Okay.

And would you do me a favor and state your name for the record?

My name is Diane Williams.

Thank you, Ms.

Williams.

Are there any other folks that would like to speak?

Yes, please come forward.

Good afternoon.

If you'd state your name for the record.

Thank you, Mr.

Higgins.

I'm across the street from that property.

And uh we have a problem with the traffic, and I don't think it is big enough for four houses on that lot.

It's gonna be congested.

Not enough parking.

And I have big failures, and I probably won't be able to get in and out of my driveway.

Okay.

Thank you for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Mr.

Brown, I know you are back in the back after we're done, if you wouldn't mind speaking to these nice folks and talking to them a little bit about permitting and where this goes from here.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Rodriguez, would you mind restating your recommendation?

And this is shall approve.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Do you all understand what shall approve means?

The neighbors that spoke.

Okay.

So a shall approve is it meets everything in the ordinance, which is Chapter 42, and that is what controls building and development here in Houston.

But by state law, if it meets that ordinance, we are required to move it forward to approve it and move it forward.

This is the very beginning stage of this process.

The next step they'll go to, after everything is approved here, they will go to public works.

And that's why I've asked Mr.

Brown in the back to go out and speak with you guys to give you some input where it goes next and where you know contact information that you all would have as this progresses forward.

Did that help?

Okay.

Very good.

Okay, Ms.

Rodriguez, I kind of cut you off.

That recommendation is to approve the plat substitute the CPC 101 form condition.

Thank you.

I also need to ask any other speakers.

Okay.

Matez, yes, Commissioner Mates.

I realize this is a shall approve, but when you look look at the plat, the driveway looks a little interesting in terms of relation to the intersection.

So is that corner public right-of-that that that um the property above to that that's showing, I mean, I just want to get some clarification because it looks really close to the intersection and a little unsafe.

Yes.

Um staff coordinated with public works, and they looked into that angle.

So there for their response the proposed location of the driveway will meet the IBM standard.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Hearing no other speakers, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brown, if you wouldn't mind standing up and this is the gentleman that will talk to you and give you some contact information and talk you through the next steps.

Okay.

Moving on to item 87.

Oh, yeah, withdrawn.

Sorry about that.

Um item 88.

Item 88 is HOB Homes on Alvin.

Uh the subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Alvin Street, between Edgar and Duane.

The purpose of the replat is to create two single-family lots and a flag lot configuration.

There are no variants requested with this item, and the applicant has met all notification requirements.

Review by legal indicates that the plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff recommendation is to approve the plaque subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87, 88, excuse me, uh, is continued.

I have no speakers signed.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

Okay.

Commissioners, if you have questions, the applicant, Mr.

Espinoza is here.

And if you don't, then I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Second Matez.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving to item 89.

Item 89.

HLB home, a lower coat replat number one.

The site is located in the city limit west of Homestead Road and start up Teetwell Road.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create three single family lots.

No variances are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Per legal, the proposed replot would not violate applicable restriction.

And that recommendation is to approve the plot substitute the CPC 101 form condition.

Madam Chair, is the pleasure of the Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 89 is continued.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I'm going to close the public hearing.

And commissioners, if you have any questions, Mr.

Espinoz is here.

And if not, I'll seek a motion for uh staff recommendation.

Motion.

Motion Garza.

Second fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving to item 90.

Item 90.

Idaho residence.

The site is located in the city limit along Idaho Street, west of Coolin Boulevard and south of Yellowstone Boulevard.

The purpose of the replat is to create one multi-unit residential reserve or MUR.

There are no variants that requested with this item.

For legal review, the replot would not violate any applicable restriction.

And staff did not receive any public comment in advance.

The applicant also met all the notification requirements.

So that recommendation is to approve the pledge substitute the CPC 101 informed condition.

Madam Chair, is the pleasure of the Commission?

You may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 90 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the uh public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion signed.

Motion Sykes.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 91.

Item 91.

Kent forward section one, parcel replat number one.

The site is located in Houston City Limit West North along Kentwood Drive and west of Kent Bower Drive.

The reason for replat is to expand an assistant liftation by replotting a liftation reserve on a portion of a lot.

The applicant is requesting a variant from section 193 to allow the portion of a lot to be replatted into a lift station reserve.

Review by legal indicate that there are no, I mean they are separate restriction that limit the use of the lot to a single family.

Because 193 only applies to the face of the plot restriction, the variant is not required because there are separately restriction on the property and not just on face of the plot.

The applicant has met all the notification requirement.

The owner of the property has entered an agreement with the City of Houston to allow the city to purchase the property.

Because the property is under contract with the land purchase agreement with the City of Houston.

The city has the authority to develop the property for public use.

It is a political subdivision of the state.

Review by legal indicates that this plot will not violate restriction filed separately.

So this is a child approved plot, and stat recommendation is to approve the plot substitute the CPC 101 from condition.

So Madam Chair, it's a pleasure of the Commission.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 91 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I will close the public hearing.

The applicant is here if you have any questions, Commissioners.

If not, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Sigler.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 92.

Item 92, Marina Height.

The site is located in the city limit east of TC Jester, north along Larkin Street, and south of Darling Street.

The purpose of the REPLA is to create one unrestricted reserve.

There are no variants requested with this item, and the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Review by legal indicate that this proposed unrestricted resure will violate applicable date restriction.

That recommendation is to disapprove the plot.

However, the applicant has submitted a written request for a 30-day extension to allow time to complete the amendment to the restriction and to provide City Legal Department enough time to review the amended restriction.

Thank you.

Yes.

Madam Chair, you may you may open the public hand for this item at this time.

I am continuing the public hearing for item 92.

The applicant is here if you guys have any questions.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

The applicant is here.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, well, I'll let me ask staff first, and then if we don't get it cleared up, I'll ask you to come up.

So the with regard to the deed restriction, the owner of this property owns all of the property, so is capable of changing the deed restrictions, correct?

That would be a question for legal, but they own all of it, is my point.

I believe so.

And the deed restrictions that encumber the lot that is part of the replat.

Um there are only two lots that the deed restrictions are subject to.

So even if it is just one other property owner, it would be a fairly straightforward process.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Okay.

All right.

Um we have been given a written request for a 30-day extension.

Do I have a motion?

Motion, Garza.

Motion Garza, second fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 93.

Yes, ma'am.

Winton Villas.

The site is located in the Houston City limit east along Winton Street, south of Old Spanish Trail.

The purpose of the leaflet is to create three single family lodge.

There are no variants that requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Review by legal indicate that this plot will not violate applicable restriction.

And that recommendation is to approve the plot substitute to the CPC 101 form condition.

Staff has not received advanced comment with this item, Madam Chair, is appreciated the commission.

You may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 93 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I will close this public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision platz with variance requests.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Patrick Shaw.

Item 94 is church story at Cypress Heights.

The site is located in the Houston ETJ, Harris County along Cypress Heights Drive, south of Jurgen Road and east of Mushke Road.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve intended for the development of a church and is requesting a variance to allow the proposed reserve to exceed maximum 1,400 feet intersection spacing along a collector street by not providing an east-west street through the property.

Staff is in support of the request.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance requires a local street every 1,400 feet along a collector street.

However, there are existing developments and recorded residential subdivision located to the west of the property, preventing the extension of an east-west street through the area.

In addition, in 2021, the planning commission granted variances for Tombaugh ISD Jurgen Road Education Campus located adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries of the subject site, allowing the campus to exceed intersection spacing requirements by omitting two east-west streets through the property to the south.

Therefore, intersection spacing must still be addressed with this site.

Harris County has no objections.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variants and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation by staff to grant the requested variance.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard?

Yes.

Second Mattes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to 95.

Madam Chair, I am going to recuse from this item.

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner Hajj.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is John Phillips of the Item 95 is Mosaic United Methodist Church.

The subject side is a 29.4 acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, north along major thoroughfare Jurgen Road, east of Mushke Road.

The applicant is proposing a single reserve restricted to church, church related uses and commercial uses, and is requesting two variances.

One, to exceed 2600 foot intersection spacing by not providing a north-south street through the site, and two, to exceed 1400-foot intersection spacing by not providing east-west street through the site.

Staff is in support of the requests.

The site is proposed to be a large church site with a large detention basin on the south side.

To the north, the site is bordered by a large detention pond and the 99 Grand Parkway with limited potential to ever to connect to the highway as it has no feeder road.

The eastern boundary is bordered by the developed estate lots for the unrecorded subdivision of high meadow farms, limiting potential connections to the east and large attention ponds to the west are also limiting the extensions of an east-west right-of-way.

To the northeast, there is an existing public stub street, Cathy Street, which could extend to provide a more fluid east-west connection that would not be hindered by the high meadow farm subdivision nor the detention ponds to the west.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variances, but it voiced concerns for the intended commercial use on a church site, to which the applicant has acquiesced and will remove the commercial use from the intended restrictions, leaving it as a church and church related uses.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested variances and approve the plat subject to CPC 1014 conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Do you have the applicant here?

Mr.

Youngblood, did you want to speak?

Are you just here for questions?

No, ma'am chair, just require.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

All right.

If not, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Montepaka.

Motion Montepaca.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to 96.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Jeff Butler.

Item 96 is Portman Center Street East Replat number one.

This was deferred at the previous two meetings.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit east of Heights Boulevard and north of Washington.

The applicant proposes a 275-unit multifamily development.

The applicant is requesting a variance for a dual building line of seven and a half feet along Center Street as opposed to the required ten feet.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located at the eastern intersection of Center and Harbor Streets.

The site was subject of a replat and variance approved in 2022, encompassing both sides of Harvard.

The applicant dedicated five feet of right-of-to Center Street with this plat, as is required by the major thoroughfare and freeway plan.

Further refinement of the eastern building's design resulted in a two and a half foot encroachment along the center street setback to incorporate structural elements into the project.

The applicant is asserting that allowing this encroachment is justified, citing the constraints imposed by earlier right-of-way dedication.

The site is within the city's street with exception area, which allows for multifamily development along 50-foot rights away.

Center Street is an exception to this provision, but the result will be similar to what is allowed in the neighborhood.

In addition, the encroachment is within the three-foot threshold allowed for the upper floors.

The variance is required to allow for this encroachment to exist at the ground level.

Staff finds that the grant of variance is consistent with the intent of the ordinance as the provided 23 feet represents significant distance to the back of curb.

We have received numerous public comments with those in support citing the area's capacity for density and those opposed citing issues with congestion.

It is worth noting, though, that these were received for a parking variance that was previously attached.

This was not being considered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Commissioners, any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Modern.

I just don't see any comments from Center Point.

Did that they review everything?

Yes.

During the second deferral period, we are actually working with them as far as verifying that it would be sufficient distance from the power lines at Center.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Any other questions?

If not, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 97.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 97 is Spring Business Plaza.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, northeast of Alding Westfield Road, south of Cypresswood Drive, and north of Tresswig Road.

The applicant is proposing one reserve restricted to commercial use and is requesting a variance to allow the reserve not to have frontage on a public right-of-way, but instead to take access from an access easement.

Staff is in support of the request.

The access easement was recorded in 1996 as a mutual non-exclusive and perpetual easement for the pro for this property and the abutting two properties along Alding Westfield Road.

The subject site has been without frontage along a public street for many decades.

The applicant is proposing an office warehouse development and will utilize the existing access easement for its access to the public street.

Although the site does not have frontage on a public street, the recorded access easement meets the intent of the ordinance requirements for providing for a means of sufficient access.

Harris County Engineering has voiced no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Staff has not received any public comments in advance, and this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

So I need a rec motion for the recommendation by staff.

Motion Montepaka.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 98.

Item 98 is topp's surgical gosling.

The item has been deferred twice and so must be acted upon today.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, west and along Gosling Road, north of the Grand Parkway, and south of Willow Creek and West Rayford Road.

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along Gosling Road by not providing an east-west through street through the subject site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The existing intersection spacing along Gosling Road is approximately 6,700 feet from Root Road to Dovershire Road, with the subject site's northern boundary approximately 1,640 feet from Dovershire.

Inwood Drive is the remaining stub street from the Northampton neighborhood, as all other plated stub streets have not been required to be extended to Gosling.

Inway Drive was dedicated by the Inwood Forest of Northampton Section 1 subdivision as an extension from Northampton Section 3.

The applicant is proposing to develop the property as a surgical hospital, requiring the dedication of a 60-foot-wide public street to align with Inway Drive Stub Street would bisect the subject site, limiting the land for their proposed use.

Likewise, an additional constraint to providing an east-west public street at this location is that the extension of Inway Drive through the site would intersect Gosling Road about 100 feet north of Actins Street on the east, which would not meet the ordinance required minimum intersection spacing of not less than 600 feet.

Harris County Engineering is in support of the variance request, not to require an east-west public street, citing the existing circulation present for the neighborhood beating adequate.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variant and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

The applicant provided a letter of support for the variance request from the Northampton Municipal Utility District opposing the extension of Nway Drive, which is included in this item's agenda materials.

Additionally, staff has received numerous public comments for this application in support of not requiring the extension of Nway Drive and one opposed to the request.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Monda PACA.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 99.

Item 99 is Wild Boar Reserve.

The subject site is a 9.3-acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, northwest along North Colby Road, north of Major Thoroughfare Cypress North Houston Road, and east of Major Thoroughfare Telgi Road.

The applicant is proposing a single unrestricted reserve and is requesting two variances.

One, to not extend nor terminate with a cul-de-sac North Colby Road, and two, to exceed 1,400 foot intersection spacing by now providing an east-west street through the site.

Staff is in support of the requests.

The site is currently used as an industrial warehouse and is planning to add an additional storage facility to the site shown in blue.

To the north, the site is bordered by the Harris County Park site as well as Cypress Creek, which is 300 feet wide at this location.

This limits any potential extension of North Colby Road.

North Colby itself is 1,190 feet before its current termination, of which five sites are currently taking access, only three of which take sole access from Kirby Colby.

To the east, there are state lots and a single family subdivision, though unrecorded, they are developed with limited potential to connect to the east.

The reserves to the west of the site take direct access from major thoroughfare Telgee Road and are well within the 2600-foot intersection spacing along that major thoroughfare.

The property is immediately southwest of all of the site or all recorded commercial sites that have direct access to major thoroughfares.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested variances and approve the plat subject to CBC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 99.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion Sykes.

Second Monte Pac.

Second Montepaca.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We have thank you.

We have nothing under E subdivision platforms.

Yes.

We are moving along to F, reconsideration of requirement number 100.

Item 100 is Fidelity Plaza.

The subject site is a five-acre property located in the Houston Corporate Limits, West along Major Collector, Fidelity Street, south of Major Collector, Market Street.

The applicant is proposing a single unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by now providing an east-west street through the site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is proposed to be a commercial truck shop, providing accessories and maintenance for 18-wheeler rig trucks.

The site is bordered to the west by a large 300-plus acre detention retention site owned by the Port of Houston Authority with a large berm surrounding the site.

Immediately to the west of that detention site is Interstate 610, where there is no feeder road and no opportunity for a state connection.

These physical and logistical obstacles make an East West Street through this site feasible.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to G, extension of approval.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Ade Sojia Desioju.

If it pleases the Commission staff would like to take sections G, H, I, and J as one group.

Yes, that would be good.

And I do need to note we have one abstention, item 106.

Is that correct, Commissioner Heich?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Pierce?

And you as well is on the same item.

Same item.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Section G extensions of approval consists of items 101 to 113.

Section H name changes consists of item 114.

Section I certification of compliance consists of item 115.

Section J Administrative consists of no items.

The planning and development department requests the approval of all staff recommendations, recommendations for sections G H I and J.

Thank you.

Commissioners do have a motion.

Motion Mates.

Second Carol.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to thank you.

Moving on to K, Development Platz with Variance Requests.

Item 116 is 5035 Carew Street.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit in Harris County along the eastern side of South Rice Avenue and south of Beechnut Street.

The applicant is proposing a new 3,900 square foot single family residence with attached garage and is requesting a variance for a 15-foot building line along South Rice Avenue and the ordinance required 25 feet.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is currently vacant and within the established Myeland Section 1 subdivision with a plated 15-foot building line along South Rice Avenue and a 25-foot building line along Carew Street.

This portion of South Rice Avenue is a boulevard with a posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour, functioning similarly to a local street, but with a little bit greater traffic volumes.

No driveway access is proposed along the major thoroughfare, South Rice Avenue, but instead from the local street, Carew Street.

The back of curb distance along South Rice to the property line is 12 feet 8 inches and more than 27 feet to the proposed structure.

The proposed structure is in keeping with the neighborhood character.

Most of the homes predate the ordinance building line requirement, meeting the 15-foot platted building line.

Approved the reduced building line is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to allow for the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles.

Houston Public Works has voiced no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to approve the request.

Staff has not received any public comments in advance, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

We do have the applicant here.

Mr.

German, did you want to make comments or just answer questions?

Okay.

Please come forward.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

And just state your name for the record for me.

My name is Luis German.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Houston Committee.

I do have some signatures from neighbors that have supported the request.

So if I can handle that.

Show it digitally or to have it part of the as part of the private public record.

So as I said, my name is Luis Chairman.

I am the owner of the property.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

We are requiring the reduction on the west side as was expected from as was explained from 25 feet to 15 feet.

One of the main reasons is the consistency with the neighborhood.

All homes along South Rice from Jason to Beachnot Street are built under the 15-foot setback, and this pattern continues along the entire stretch, allowing this home to be built at 50 feet will match the established architectural rhythm, spacing, and character of the area.

South Rice is a quiet, a beautiful avenue with a wide bayou running through it.

Traffic is divided into two lanes on either side, Caruza Local Street, non-connecting loop.

So there is basically no major traffic on that intersection.

Our current design preserves all the mature trees on the property, beautiful Laiboak and majestic Blackog, and it provides backyard that fills naturally with the neighborhood character.

We are already completing a full architecture and engineering design.

And if the variance is granted, we are full prepared to begin construction immediately.

Thus will revitalize the lot as it has been vacant since Huracan Herby and enhance the neighborhood appearance and generate hopefully additional revenues to the city.

Finally, uh we believe a similar variance was granted just 100 yards away to a property that is situated in Beach North Street and South Rice, which is a much, much easier intersection.

So the home receive approval and that set back for exactly the same reasons.

This variant request is not about exceeding exceeding limits or creating something out of scale.

It is about achieving a thoughtful balanced design, one that aligns with the neighborhood, respect the precedents, preserve mature trees, maintain the backyard.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So we have a recommendation of approval by staff.

Do I have a motion?

Motion ball one, second ballard, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 117.

Item 117 is 8030 Fulton Street.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit in Harris County, along the eastern side of Fulton Street and north of Cross Timbers Road.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new surface parking lot and temporary metro police office trailers and is requesting a variance from the requirement that improvements requiring a building permit comply with the transit-oriented development standards.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located along a designated primary transit-oriented development street due to its proximity to a metro rail station one block south.

Per the ordinance, developments along a primary TOD street are required to comply with the enhanced pedestrian realm standards.

The applicant is proposing two temporary office buildings for Metro Police.

The buildings are proposed to be placed not between the parking area and the pedestrian realm, which would be required.

The applicant is requesting to have the TOD requirements waived for this specific project, which is intended to be temporary.

Staff finds the request in keeping with the intent of the ordinance, allowing this northern portion of the site to be developed as proposed in order to meet the current operational needs of Metro, while providing the required improvements within the pedestrian realm along Fulton.

The future intent of the site, which is at the northernmost station on the red line, is for a multi-story metro transit center and park and ride facility to be developed within the next couple of years.

The future transit center facility will be required to comply with the TOD requirements.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to approve the request, and staff has not received any public comments in advance.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker.

I believe it's the applicant, Casey Maheshwar.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Yes.

Commissioner Baldwin.

I am all for this.

I'm all for public paper.

I am just curious how long this temporary last.

I mean, what's to keep them from being there 20 years or something?

Is is there some limit that says they have to develop this within the No, um, because they're not being permitted as temporary buildings, which by building code is 180 days.

Um but we have heard from Metro and they actually have a permit set in for review.

It's just not approved for the full four-story transit center.

Um it's coming.

Yeah.

But they have said within two years is really their target.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Okay.

We have a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion ball one.

Second Mattes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 118.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the planning commission.

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 118 is 1510 Goliad Street.

The site is east of Houston Avenue and west of the I-10 I-45 interchange along Goliad Street north of Bingham Street.

The applicant is proposing a new single family residence and is requesting a five-foot front building line with 15-foot garage building line, as well as not to dedicate 10 feet of right-away.

This portion of Goliad Street dead ends into a railroad track adjacent to the subject property and is a narrow local street.

The setback is consistent with historic structures in the area, many of which were built before ordinance building lines.

The garage setback will provide 15 feet from property line to the garage door, fronted by a 10-foot carport with occupiable second and third floor space above.

However, the proposed home will be one of only two properties taking access from this block of Goliad Street.

So concerns about visibility for cars and pedestrians are minimal.

Requiring 10 feet of right-away dedication would further limit the buildable area of the site and would not result in beneficial street widening given that this portion of Colliad dead ends at the subject site and is not likely to be extended across the railroad tracks in the foreseeable future.

Because of limited buildable area at the site, as well as the project's location at a dead end of a local street and its consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, staff recommendation is to approve a five-foot front building line, 15-foot garage building line, and not to dedicate right away.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion ball one?

Second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 119.

Item 119 is 609 Oxford Street.

The site is east of Heights Boulevard and north of White Oak Drive, along the west side of Oxford Street, south of East 7th Street.

The applicant is proposing a mid-rise multifamily building and requesting to provide a five-foot buffer in lieu of the ordinance required 15-foot buffer between the building and the property line of a lot restricted to single family residential use.

Chapter 42 defines a mid-rise as a building taller than 65 feet, but with a finished floor for the highest floor less than 75 feet tall.

Mid-rise structures next to properties in use for or restricted to single-family residential use require a 15-foot buffer between the building and the abutting property line.

In this case, the adjacent property at 617 Oxford Street is currently a single family residence and is restricted to future single family residential use by a special minimum lot size area with single-family restrictions.

The site where development is proposed is grandfathered for multifamily use based on the minimum lot size area application.

The 617 Oxford Street site is under the same ownership as 609 Oxford Street, and the applicant proposed options to meet the intent of the buffering ordinance, such as restricting the first 15 feet of the lot at 1617 Oxford Street to open space.

Legal review raised concerns about this approach conflicting with the minimum lot size area ordinance, and staff received multiple public comments with similar concerns.

Although the mid-rise buffering ordinance and minimum lot size area ordinance limit the buildable area and options for expanding the size of the site, previous permit applications for this site suggests that development is feasible without a variance.

And because fire code and building code compliance may require redesigning the building, the site, or both, the variance request may be premature at this time.

Because there does not appear to be a significant hardship other than economic one, and because meeting fire access and building code requirements may require design adjustments.

Staff recommendation is to disapprove the variance request.

However, the applicant has submitted a request for deferral and is here to present his case.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Grothis.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

My name is Rick Groth Hughes.

As of Tuesday morning, we had contacted staff, and staff sounded like they were encouraged that they were going to go forward with the recommendation for the five-foot buffer, the reduction.

As of 1140 this morning, I got the call that it was being changed to a deny.

And therefore, with the short notice, we are respectfully requesting a two-week deferral so that we can gather back with planning department as well as possibly neighbors to find out what exactly is going on.

As well as maybe expanding some understanding that our intent is really to leave the lot as open space.

We would really like it to be a 55-foot buffer instead of the 15-foot buffer.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

But there's no guarantee you don't sell it tomorrow.

I mean, you can sell that and that wouldn't would no longer further restrict it.

So that might be your intent.

But the purpose of special minimum lot size is to prevent the creep of this and the expansion of the buffering ordinance that we did in the last couple of years is also for this very reason.

It is an out-of-scale building in the middle of a block in a residential area.

Thus we created these buffering ordinances for a reason.

So what would you hope to accomplish in the two weeks that would convince me that the buffering ordinance that we just expanded would not be the main reason for us to vote for denial?

I would argue that the buffer is to protect people that are unwittingly encroached upon.

If the building is there first and then we sell the lot, that's not encroaching on somebody that doesn't know that that building is already there.

We have offered many solutions to try to preserve that entire lot as landscaping.

Unfortunately, they have all been turned down by legal.

We would love to reply it as a landscape reserve.

We would love to somehow protect it.

We will do anything that is allowed to make sure that it does remain as a landscape reserve.

We have even looked at dedicating it either as a private or a public park.

I don't think it meets the public requirements.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Okay.

Ms.

Cook, can I ask you a question?

Is there a way?

Like if this gets deferred, can they replatt that?

I know they don't have time to replatt it in two weeks, but is there any way a condition could be put on this plat to require that?

No, I think it is going to need to be a separate reply application.

Okay.

Thank you.

So they could come back and do what he says, but they would have to do it in the time or you wouldn't be able to do it in two weeks anyway.

So part of me suggests we move on with the disapproval.

I mean, Commissioner.

That would be my question is like the way it is being presented.

I don't think most of us are inclined.

So in two weeks, are is your intention to redesign something that is presented in a way.

That is my question.

That's your question.

In two weeks, do you see coming back with presenting a different layout?

Not a different layout, but by Monday morning, uh I believe that's the next deadline submittal.

I can certainly have the replat for that lot submitted.

And it would be on the next meeting agenda.

Or possibly it could go into a public hearing.

I am not sure whether that's because it's uh restricted to single family, I believe it is going to have to go to a public hearing.

But I could certainly have it fully submitted by Monday morning.

Yes.

Mr.

Buckley.

The JSON lot is in a minimum lot size area that is restricted to single family, so it could not be platted into any other use other than single-family residential.

But we could redesignate it.

I mean, we there is a provision in the ordinance that will allow us to dedicate it as green space for the public or a park or something.

We we have the ability.

Yes, we have.

I mean, we we have changed the classifications of others.

So would we not have would not planning commission be able to change that designation if we want?

I would have to defer to legal on that.

Right.

Is this based upon separately filed deed restrictions on this lot?

It is just minimum lot size, yeah.

Uh but it is under the limit the minimum lot size ordinance.

So it has to be.

Yeah, I think it's going to have to stay.

Yeah.

I don't think we can redesignate over the minimum lot size designation.

We can, but we we have before.

I mean, even that that cold quit thing was that's the whole purpose of the Colquit thing, but we're in a lawsuit with them.

But great idea.

We had the ability.

I mean, it came before it's because we had the ability.

We just chose not to.

So we can reclassify something if we felt like it was in the neighborhood's best interest.

If the neighborhood could get a free park versus a rent house that is never going to be anything next to an adjacent apartment complex, there might be a community benefit for.

That's how we got Donovan Park.

It was going to be a gas station all of a sudden it's a park.

So I guess the point would be, Commissioner, that if we delay by two weeks, the onus is on the applicant, not on us.

Right.

Correct.

I am not.

Suvida has something to do with the needs to add.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We can look into the option of replatting.

What I have known so far is that it cannot be replatted to call it a park.

At the Commission's request, we can look into that.

I am not going to promise that that will be the solution and that is a possibility, but we can definitely look at more revenues if that is the Commission's wish.

So in other words, so a deferral, something might be accomplished in two weeks.

But we don't know what it might be.

We don't know what it might be.

We will look at the question that has been posed by the Commissioner.

Okay.

I am just trying to look at what is in the best interest of the neighborhood.

So if we deny him and he bills something and he picks it 15 and we have this, he owns a structure that really has a poor future, a poor residential future.

There could be a benefit to allowing a little more time to see.

Now I don't want green space for their apartment complex, because that's a dog park that no one can use.

But if we could find a way if there was a community benefit, I'm telling you, that's how we got Marmian Park.

That's how we got Donovan Park.

That's how we get often these little parklets.

And that little block could use a little parklet that could be used for some purpose for the community's benefit.

I'm I'm look, I was leaning towards voting you down, but if there is a way that the community that 600 block is busy, it's got already a tall structure.

If there could be some green space there for other for community use.

Okay.

I'm gonna pull the fast one and I'm gonna ask the director, Trad.

Again, uh to me, again, I don't have a a qualm without giving them two weeks, but I am concerned about overburdening staff for two weeks when we don't we're not able to accomplish anything.

So I'd like your input.

Yes, so certainly as our applicant said, we really were working very hard uh to come up with solutions.

Our applicant has expressed from very early on that he was very willing to work with us.

So believe me, all the things that we discussed here, we went through rounds and rounds and rounds of it.

And we've concluded that it is not possible.

Now, Commissioner Baldwin, I was not aware of the one situation that you said, so we are willing to take a look at it.

But again, we went through many different exercises of how this can be done.

And uh our apology to our applicant, we really took all attempts.

All right.

And so the situation is that uh there is not a hardship for this particular development.

Um the development can be done.

It was uh proposed in 2024 for a uh not as a uh mid-rise as high.

Uh the 15 feet buffer could be achieved, and so it could be done.

It just could be done differently.

Now to build it higher and taller, it will require that 15 feet.

And we get it.

It it it it is a conundrum, right?

Uh the property adjacent is owned by the the owner, the same entity, and they're willing to do something about it, but the ordinance and the minimum lot size do not allow us to mix them really.

Uh so at this point, what I am hearing is is there a possibility to go back to the minimum lot size and look at that ordinance?

Are we looking at revising that particular ordinance to allow that single lot adjacent to be something other than single family?

And obviously, I don't think I've worked on one, but we can look at the the case that you just mentioned.

We're willing to in the next two weeks.

Okay.

Okay.

So we have a uh recommendation for disapproval, but I am hearing a motion by Commissioner Baldwin to defer for two weeks.

Is that correct?

I'll help you in that two weeks.

We need a second.

Okay.

So do I have a second?

Second Jones.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Okay.

Chickens.

Okay.

So Commissioner Maras and Garza oppose the motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving along to item one twenty.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the planning commission.

My name is Ramon Jaime Leon.

Uh item 120.

The site is within the Houston City limits.

The property lies on the south side of 610 loop west of Coulombard.

Can we interrupt?

Um Saudi, Madam Chair.

We had a speaker on the previous item that was uh interested to speak on the item.

Okay.

Um one.

Yeah, I mean we've moved it forward, but sure.

Come on up.

Um sorry, I didn't have a sign-in sheet for you.

Hi, yes, good evening, uh, Chair Commissioner, and members of the public.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um I'm the direct neighbor of the seven-story development.

Uh my name is Sonia Verhagen, and I live on Oxford Street.

I'm here to respectfully oppose the seven-story building and and my neighbors as well that are unable to be here today.

Uh 623, and I can continue naming all across the street.

Um, I want to start by saying I I support thoughtful growth and the need for housing.

It's not about placing the right development in the right, it's about placing the right development in the right um location.

My primary concern is the high density project.

It's not compatible with our low density residential neighborhood.

We're already experiencing that with the three-story apartment building.

Um, and I'll start first with traffic, multifamily housing significantly increases daily trips, commuters, deliveries, visitors, um, which include abandoned cars and recreational drugs that we smell on the street.

Uh second is the parking, these developments often underestimate the parking needs, narrow lanes, uh reduced visibility, children, runners, myself, we're on the street, and um many near misses due to this hazard, and pedestrian safety should be a huge concern here.

Fourth, in infrastructure strain.

Um, increased demand on water, sewage, drainage.

We're experiencing that already right on my sidewalk.

Um, extreme amount of um investment on on the personal side due to that.

Um, flooding risk, added pavement, reduced absorption can worsen worsen stormwater runoff, and overwhelm local drainage during heavy rains.

Finally, this project changes the character of the neighborhood, introducing more noise, um, poor air quality, lighting, and constraint activity that reduces resident residences' quality of life.

For these reasons and other neighbors on the street, we vehemently oppose this development.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Sorry we skipped over you, but um we appreciate your comments.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other questions for that item?

We're gonna move on to 120.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Ramon Jaime Leon.

The site is uh within the city limits.

The property lies on the south side of 610 loop, west of Cullen Boulevard, at the uh at the east of Scott Street at the southwest intersection of 610 and uh Teresa Street.

The applicant is pro uh proposes to construct an auxiliary dwelling unit adjacent to the existing single family residence.

A variance is requested to allow an 18-foot building line along 610 loop instead of the ordinance required 25-foot building line for a major uh for major thoroughfares.

Staff supports the request.

Applying a full 25-foot building line will affect the uh effect only approximate approximately seven feet of the ADU at this uh at the northwest corner.

The rest of the proposed ADU remains outside the 25-foot building line.

The site was originally platted with uh as a mid-block lot within the Brookhaven edition in 1939.

The plat established a 15 uh establish a 105-foot wide lot with no building lines.

Prior to the construction of 610 loop, lot two only had frontage along Teresa Street.

When the loop was built, property boundaries were realigned and lots 1A and 1B were dedicated to the right-of-way, leaving lot two as a corner lot with frontage on the highway.

Due to the curvature of the adjacent roadway and additional right-of-way acquired for uh the 610 expansion, the proposed setback maintains approximately 26 feet between the street curb and the property line.

The separation minimizes any potential visibility for public safety concerns.

The proposed ADU also takes vehicular access from the local street and provides the required safety buffer and sidewalk.

Stafford commits the approval of the requested variants to allow an 18-foot building line in lieu of the um ordinance required 25 foot for major therapies.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 120.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

If you have a recommendation by staff for approval, do I have a motion?

Motion secondary.

Motion Sigler.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to remand numeral two, establish a public hearing date of April 30th, 2026 for Acevedo properties, Adams Landing, Bladonna Estates, Burkett Gardens Estates, Ella Greens, Espinoza Residents, Hazard Street Views, HCWCID number 36, Marwood Lift Station, McAlpine Terraces, and West Main Grove.

Do I have a motion?

Motion aye.

Motion Heich?

Second Siri.

Second Siram.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Remember number three.

I have no one signed for public comment.

Is there anyone that wishes to make a public comment?

Hearing none, I'll adjourn this meeting at 3 59 p.m.

Thank you.